Skip to main content
Glama

delete_merge_request_discussion_note

Destructive

Remove a specific discussion note from a merge request by supplying project, merge request IID, discussion ID, and note ID. Use after verifying the target to avoid irreversible data removal.

Instructions

Delete a discussion note on a merge request. Use this only after verifying the target; choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it. It changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible; it requires the necessary project or group permission and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesThe ID of a thread note
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
discussion_idYesThe ID of a thread
merge_request_iidYesThe IID of a merge request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Addedv2.1.18
  2. Removedv2.1.14
  3. Addedv2.1.11
  4. Removedv2.1.10
  5. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "project_id",
      +  "merge_request_iid",
      +  "discussion_id",
      +  "note_id"
      +]
  6. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Although destructiveHint is already true, the description adds valuable context: remote GitLab data may be changed or removed, the action may be irreversible, permissions are required, and specific error classes such as validation, conflict, permission, and rate-limit errors may be returned. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and keeps safety guidance compact. The only slight weakness is the generic 'project_id or group_id' phrasing, since group_id is not present in this tool's schema, making that part mildly extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive four-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers usage timing, irreversibility, permissions, error behavior, and identifier formatting. It does not explicitly describe success behavior or distinguish itself from other note-deletion siblings, but it is otherwise well-rounded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four required parameters. The description adds only generic guidance about numeric IDs, URL-encoded paths, and exact identifier usage, which is helpful but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a direct, specific statement: 'Delete a discussion note on a merge request.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this from related sibling note tools by naming the 'discussion note' target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance to verify the target first and to use a get or list tool when inspection is needed rather than changing state. It could name specific sibling alternatives, but the general 'get or list' routing is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zereight/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server